Prospective, Randomized Inpatient Study of Oral Metronidazole versus Oral Metronidazole and Rifampin for Treatment of Primary Episode of<i>Clostridium difficile</i>–Associated Diarrhea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To date, no randomized trial to address the use of adjunctive rifampin in addition to metronidazole for the treatment of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea has been reported. Rifampin has excellent in vitro activity against C. difficile and penetrates into cellular materials where the organisms may persist. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, single-blinded study of 39 patients that compared therapy with metronidazole alone versus therapy with metronidazole and rifampin for 10 days to treat laboratory-confirmed primary episode C. difficile-associated diarrhea. Twenty patients were randomly assigned to the metronidazole group, and 19 were randomly assigned to the metronidazole and rifampin group. Data were analyzed by intention-to-treat analysis using the 2-tailed Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test. RESULTS: Adjunctive rifampin treatment for 10 days, compared with treatment with metronidazole alone for 10 days, was associated with a similar median time to symptom improvement (9.0 days vs. 6.5 days; P=.74), a similar median time to first relapse (26 days vs. 16 days; P=.23), a similar proportion of patients with relapse by study day 40 (42% vs. 38%; P=1.0), and a similar proportion of patients experiencing nonfatal adverse events (37% vs. 40%; P=.55). There were a significantly higher number of deaths in the metronidazole and rifampin group, compared with the metronidazole group (6 of 19 patients vs. 1 of 20 patients; P=.04), but there were fewer laboratory-confirmed relapses by study day 40 (2 vs. 4; P=.66). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that there is no role for routine rifampin as an adjunct to treatment with metronidazole for hospitalized patients with C. difficile-associated diarrhea. The cure rates for both treatment groups remain unacceptably low, and better treatments are urgently needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".